Nuclear Age Peace Foundation

Tag: NAPF

  • Report on the Morning NGO Abolition Caucus: Insomniacs for Peace

    The NGO Abolition Morning Caucus met every day during the four week Non-Proliferation Treaty Review Conference starting on Tuesday, May 4th straight through to the last day of the UN meeting on May 28th. We gathered each day at 8:00 AM at the UN gates on First Avenue, waiting for the guards to unlock the chains on the UN fence and then proceeded through “security” to the temporary building on the North Lawn where a conference room had been reserved for the use of NGOs. Conference Room A was almost always in use, hosting the Abolition Caucus, the daily NGO government briefings organized by Reaching Critical Will, the plethora of NGO panels, films, testimony from Hibakusha, brainstorming and strategy sessions through the course of the Review. 

    Our Abolition Caucus began each morning by reviewing the day’s calendar, proposing a new agenda for each day, and then brainstorming to plan various actions during the course of the Conference. At the end of each meeting a new facilitator would volunteer to Chair the meeting for the following day, and volunteers sent out daily minutes of our work. In the first week, as many as 60 nuclear activists showed up at our morning meetings, hailing from every continent and united in our commitment to rid the world of the nuclear scourge. 

    We were encouraged by the many nations who called for negotiations on a Nuclear Weapons Convention and all signed on to about 30 thank you notes that were presented to their Ambassadors at the Review conference.  The Ambassador from Switzerland was so moved by our message that he asked us to send another one to his Foreign Minister. We sent two letters from the caucus to Secretary General Ban-Ki Moon. One expressed our thanks and appreciation for his enthusiastic support of negotiations for a nuclear weapons convention and his Five Point Plan.The other was to express our dismay and urge mediation instead of the rude treatment we witnessed of Iran’s President, by the western powers who walked out on him during his speech on the first day of the Conference.

    We drafted statements in response to the Main Committee I and III reports, issued our own nuclear abolitionists preamble to the report, did a satirical take on the conference in The Scallion, a riff on The Onion, a US publication that writes spoofs of current events, and issued a final statement and critique of the weakened outcome document at the Conference. Usually our documents were inserted in the News in Review issued each day by Reaching Critical Will for distribution to the delegates.  The Abolition Caucus documents are on the web at http://www.reachingcriticalwill.org/legal/npt/2010index.html under “Other Resources”.  We also networked with the Commission on Sustainable Development which was meeting concurrently with the NPT and addressing the catastrophic results of mining.  They held a heart-wrenching presentation on the havoc of uranium mining.   Our caucus was able to enroll the French government, represented at one of the morning briefings, to permit us to show the promo for a film on the evils of uranium mining at the closing of a French presentation on the benefits of “peaceful” nuclear power.

    At the close of the meeting we presented the delegates with fortune cookies, which when opened, said “Global Zero Now”. Most important, we now have a list of over 100 international participants who can continue the warm relationships and camaraderie that developed over the four weeks, newly energized and inspired by each other as we work together for a nuclear free world. Onward to June 5th and International Nuclear Abolition Day!!  See www.icanw.org.

  • The Nuclear Age Peace Foundation Needs You

    The Nuclear Age Peace Foundation Needs You

    The Nuclear Age Peace Foundation (NAPF) is a civil society organization, made up of and supported by individuals who care about its goals. Like thousands of other civil society organizations throughout the world, the Foundation tries to accomplish goals that will make the world a better place.

    The principal goal of NAPF is to abolish nuclear weapons. This is a goal that it cannot accomplish directly. It is a goal, for example, that differs from the direct assistance of providing food or medical supplies to disaster victims or people living in extreme poverty. To achieve its goal of abolishing nuclear weapons, NAPF must exert influence on public policy, leading to creating a world free of nuclear weapons. The Foundation works by educating and advocating. For its work, the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation has been recognized by the United Nations as a Peace Messenger organization.

    Since the goal of creating a world free of nuclear weapons requires a broad international effort and the Foundation has limited resources, it must be strategic in fulfilling its mission. Thus, NAPF has concluded that it is best to direct its efforts for change by working with international networks of like-minded civil society organizations and by focusing specifically on changing US nuclear policy.

    In its networking, NAPF helped found the Abolition 2000 Global Network for the Elimination of Nuclear Weapons, a network now linking over 2,000 organizations and municipalities worldwide. It was also a founding member of the Middle Powers Initiative, a coalition of international organizations that works with middle power governments to apply pressure to the nuclear weapons states for nuclear disarmament. NAPF helped found the International Network of Engineers and Scientists for Global Responsibility. The Foundation also maintains an office in Washington, DC where it networks with US arms control and disarmament organizations on nuclear policy issues coming before the Congress. The Foundation continues to be active in all of these networks, providing leadership where it can.

    The Foundation is a US-based organization, and it has concluded that US leadership is necessary in order to make significant progress in eliminating nuclear weapons. Thus, NAPF puts special emphasis on educating the US public on issues of nuclear weapons dangers and the need to abolish these weapons. It also seeks to influence US policy makers to assert greater leadership in this policy area.

    More than 60 years into the Nuclear Age, there is today not one US Senator that champions the abolition of nuclear weapons as one of his or her principal legislative goals. Nor has such leadership been exerted by any US President, although many have noted the importance of this issue.

    The Foundation has concentrated on building its base by educating the public on the need to abolish nuclear weapons and by advocating positions that the public can press for with their elected representatives. The Foundation believes that public pressure is needed to move policy makers to take stronger positions on the elimination of nuclear weapons.

    There are many obstacles to achieving change in the area of US nuclear policy. First, the mainstream media are not highly receptive to the Foundation’s message. Second, psychological factors of fear, denial and apathy make this a difficult issue for attracting widespread public involvement. Third, the public most likely also feels that their voices do not count on this issue and that policy makers do not pay attention to them. Fourth, there are corporate interests with profit motivations exerting a strong counterinfluence on the US government.

    Despite these obstacles, public opinion polls show that over 70 percent of Americans favor nuclear disarmament. It is significant that there is a major disconnect between the majority of people in the US and their government on the issue of eliminating nuclear arsenals. The US government, for reasons having more to do with power and profit than security, finds it preferable to continue to rely upon nuclear weapons, even in light of the dangers of these weapons falling into the hands of terrorists who could not be deterred from using them.

    A number of former high-level US policy makers – including Henry Kissinger, George Shultz, William Perry and Sam Nunn – have concluded that the world is at a nuclear “tipping point,” and that it is strongly in the US interest to provide leadership for a world free of nuclear weapons. This is the position that the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation reached 25 years ago.

    The Foundation has been a voice of conscience and sanity on the nuclear threat confronting humanity for 25 years. It has also been a voice largely in the wilderness. NAPF has been right, but it has been ignored. It is time for new leadership in America. The Foundation’s vision of a world free of nuclear weapons and US leadership to obtain this goal should be at the forefront of a new direction for the country.

    Without US leadership, the goal of a nuclear weapons-free world is not a possibility. With US leadership, the US can take important steps to assure its own future security, as well as that of humanity, and can free up resources for constructive pursuits.

    The Nuclear Age Peace Foundation’s work is more critical than ever. But to succeed as a civil society organization, the Foundation needs greater personal and financial support from civil society. Those who give low priority to abolishing nuclear weapons are rolling the dice on the future of their children, grandchildren and all generations to follow. Abolishing nuclear weapons is the Foundation’s mission; it is also a responsibility of all of us alive on the planet today.

    David Krieger is President of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation.

  • A Very Costly I Told You So

    All was in vain. The rhetoric and deceptions by the officials supporting our self-anointed “War President” prevailed, and America launched an attack on a country that was not an enemy or a real threat to the US.

    I wrote several articles denouncing the tricks and lies supporting the war—from the former Secretary of State Colin Powell, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, from the then National Security Council Advisor Condolezza Rice and, of course, from Vice President Dick Cheney—who were all hovering like hawks over the war drums being beaten by President Bush.

    We, who were in opposition, risked our reputation, friends and even our means of living. It was easier to follow the big river of chorus praising the “march for democracy.” We were branded weird, unpatriotic, even traitors.

    In one of my articles titled “Lying to Provoke a War, Not a New Issue in Washington,” published on the NAPF website on June 9, 2003 and reproduced on many other websites, I finished my comments with the following lines:

    “The Iraq war is not over yet. American soldiers continue dying nearly every week in the occupied Arab nation. Thousands of innocent Iraqi men, women and children have died. So much for the ‘sparing the innocent’ stated by President Bush. The business of oil and the big contracts for the reconstruction of Iraq conceded to the inner club of companies linked to top officials of this administration cover the air with a smell of suspicion.

    The possibility of an investigation by the Senate to determine if the American people and the world were deceived in what George W. Bush pompously called ‘the first war of the 21st century’ could lead to an impeachment and political disgrace.”

    Three years later the situation has changed. The majority of the US public condemns the actions of Mr. Bush and his failed and devious policies. When I wrote that article, two months earlier President Bush had declared “Major combat has ended.” In those days no more than 70 US fatalities were added to the count since the beginning of the war. Now, more than 3,000 American soldiers have died in Iraq and tens of thousands of Iraqis have been seriously injured by bombings, “friendly fire” mistakes, etc.

    Making things worse, George Bush is now ordering more troops to Iraq without a real plan to solve the big mess he has created in that volatile part of the world.

    If this situation were not so tragic and absurd, we could say this is just a chapter of the Human Comedy written by Honore de Balzac in 1842.

    Let’s hope that a better nation, better informed and with true morals demands justice and holds responsible those that have been lying and deceiving not just the US but the whole world.

     

    Ruben Arvizu is Director for Latin America of Nuclear Age Peace Foundation and International President of Freedom From War.

  • 2006 Annual Dinner Speech: World Citizenship Award to Bianca Jagger

    2006 Annual Dinner Speech: World Citizenship Award to Bianca Jagger

    Let me state the obvious: We are living in deeply troubling times. Having learned little from our mistakes in Vietnam, we repeat them in Iraq. Having learned little from the Cuban Missile Crisis, we have moved again to the nuclear precipice. Our cities, our country and civilization itself remain at risk of catastrophic nuclear devastation.

    The North Korean nuclear test did not happen in a vacuum. It happened after continued failures to negotiate in good faith with the North Koreans and after failures of our country to lead in fulfilling our obligations under the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. It also happened after our government performed 1,054 nuclear tests, and has continued to the present to conduct sub-critical nuclear tests. Current US nuclear policies are leading us in the same direction with Iran, and other countries will follow if we do not change these policies.

    At the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation, we are convinced that we cannot trust the future of civilization and humanity itself to political or military leaders. We must bring about change – change in vision and in leadership. Our work is to educate and inspire you and others throughout the world to become the leaders we have been waiting for so that together we can change the barren landscape of nuclear arrogance, threat and absurdity to a beautiful global garden, alive with diversity, which assures a future for our children and all children, including those of Iraq, Iran and North Korea. We will not be safe until all the world’s children are safe, and this cannot happen in a nuclear-armed world.

    In the past week, the Foundation sponsored its third Think Outside the Bomb Conference, bringing together more than 150 young people to learn about nuclear dangers and to develop the tools of leadership that they will need to change the world. I’d like to ask our Youth Empowerment Director, Will Parrish, who organized this conference, to stand and be recognized. Next week Will travels to New York, where he will lead an East Coast Think Outside the Bomb Conference with more than 100 young leaders. Let me also ask the rest of our committed and hardworking staff at the Foundation to stand and be recognized.

    I’ve recently returned from Japan where I participated in the 3rd Nagasaki Global Citizens’ Assembly for the Elimination of Nuclear Weapons. The event was sponsored by the city of Nagasaki, and reflected the desire of the people of Nagasaki to assure that they would remain the last city ever to be destroyed by nuclear weapons.

    At the conference, there was considerable concern expressed about the North Korean nuclear test, which took place very much in the neighborhood of Japan. Rather than seek heavy sanctions on North Korea or push for Japan itself to develop a nuclear force, the desire of the Global Citizens’ Assembly was for the creation of a Northeast Asian Nuclear Weapons Free Zone to include all the countries in the region as well as the nuclear weapons states, such as the United States, with nuclear forces in the region.

    The conference concluded with the adoption of a 15-point Appeal. I’d like to share with you just two points from this Appeal.

    The first point stated: “We strongly proclaim that nuclear weapons are the most barbaric, inhumane and cowardly of weapons, and we call upon the governments of all countries, without exception, to renounce the practice of seeking security through nuclear weapons.”

    The final point of the Appeal stated: “We call upon citizens everywhere to add their voices to those of the Hibakusha [atomic bomb survivors] in calling for the total elimination of nuclear weapons before these weapons destroy our cities, our countries and civilization itself.”

    The survivors of the atomic bombings speak as World Citizens, as does our honoree for our World Citizenship Award tonight.

    A World Citizen recognizes the fundamental unity of humankind, and the increased need to embrace that unity brought about by the dangers of the Nuclear Age. A World Citizen recognizes that our greatest problems can neither be contained nor controlled within national borders. Solving all the great problems of our time – from preserving the environment, to halting global warming, to upholding human rights, to living in peace and preventing war, to ending the nuclear threat to humanity – all of these require global cooperation that must be built on a foundation of World Citizenship.

    Bianca Jagger was born in Nicaragua and witnessed first-hand the terror and brutality of the Somoza regime. Witnessing the greed and injustice of this regime set her on a lifetime path of speaking out and working for the oppressed and dispossessed of the world.

    Ms. Jagger has traveled the world in support of the poor, the infirm and the disadvantaged, those whose lives have been torn apart by war and environmental devastation. Wherever she has gone she has taken a strong and outspoken stand for peace and justice. She has put her life at risk in war-torn countries, and used her celebrity to be a voice for those who would not otherwise be heard or even noticed.

    For her tireless efforts, she has received many awards, including the Right Livelihood Award, also known as the Alternative Nobel Prize. She honors us with her presence this evening, and we are very pleased to present her with the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation’s 2006 World Citizenship Award.

     

    David Krieger is president of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation (www.wagingpeace.org). He is a leader in the global effort for a world free of nuclear weapons.

  • It Is Up To Us

    I am very honored by this award, and I accept it on behalf of all the people I work with and have struggled with to build a better world – particularly my colleagues at the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation.

    When we founded the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation, we believed that we cannot sit back and wait for leaders like Mikhail Gorbachev. Such leaders – with his wisdom, vision and courage – are all too rare.

    We believed that we ordinary citizens must step forward, and create the change we wish to see in the world.

    My life was transformed when, shortly after graduating from college, I visited Hiroshima.

    The Peace Memorial Museum in Hiroshima awakened me, as I had not been before, to the true extent of the dangers of the Nuclear Age.

    Over the years since then, I have come to know many of the survivors of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. They are called hibakusha. With one voice, they say, “Never again! We will not repeat the evil.”

    The hibakusha understand, as few others in this world do, that nuclear weapons and human beings cannot co-exist, and that we must eliminate these weapons before they eliminate us.

    That is our challenge. It is the challenge that I confront daily. It is the challenge of our time and of our generation. It is a challenge we cannot fail to accept and we cannot fail to accomplish.

    I believe that each generation has a responsibility to pass the world on intact to the next generation. You might say that that is the least we can do for the future.

    But for us in the Nuclear Age, this is a more difficult task than ever before. Nuclear weapons contain the potential to foreclose a human future.

    If we succeed in eliminating these weapons of genocide, indeed omnicide, we will be viewed in the future as having done our part to save the world.

    If we fail, there may be no future generations to remember us or to judge us.

    We in the United States must press our government to stop being the greatest obstacle to nuclear disarmament. It is not in our interest, nor that of our children, for our government to cling tenaciously to these terrible weapons and even try, as it is doing now, to create new nuclear weapons for specific purposes.

    Rather, the United States, as the world’s most powerful nation, should, in our own interest and that of humanity, lead the way to a world free of nuclear weapons.

    It is up to us to change our country and the world.

    Each of us can be as powerful as anyone who ever lived. All we need to do is set our intentions and take a first step. Without doubt, a first step will lead to a second, and we will be on our way.

    We are all gifted with consciences to guide us, with voices we can raise, with arms to embrace, and with feet to take a stand. These are the gifts with which the future calls out to us to act.

    We must fight ignorance with education, apathy with direction, complacency with vision, and despair with hope. We owe this to ourselves and to our children.

    I’d like to conclude with an excerpt from a poem in my new book. The poem is about hibakusha, the survivors of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and it is about silence. It is called Hibakusha Do Not Just Happen, and this is the way it ends:

    For every hibakusha many must contribute For every hibakusha many must obey For every hibakusha many must be silent

    It is up to us to break the silence – for each other, for humanity and for the future.

  • Presentation of 2004 Peace Award

    Presentation of 2004 Peace Award

    Tonight we honor an extraordinary journalist, a familiar face and voice for us all, a man of uncompromising integrity.

    Our theme tonight is broadcasting peace, and there are few broadcasters who have held peace so dear as our honoree.

    When Lyndon Johnson realized that he had lost the support of our honoree for the Vietnam War, he knew that he had lost the support of the country. He knew that Walter Cronkite would tell the American people the truth about the war – and that truth would end their support for the war.

    When journalists serve power rather than truth, there can be a fast descent into the frightening world of George Orwell’s 1984. It takes dedicated journalists to assure that war is not equated with peace; that ignorance is not equated with strength; and that freedom is not equated with slavery.

    The principal function of a journalist is to bring the truth to the people so that power will not be abused. That requires hard work and integrity, and it is what has characterized Walter Cronkite throughout his distinguished career. Mr. Cronkite has served democracy well, and set a high standard for younger journalists to follow.

    In his career spanning over 65 years in journalism, he has earned the respect of the American people and of people throughout the world. He has been named the “most influential person” in broadcasting and selected in a nationwide viewer survey as the “Most Trusted Man in Television News.”

    He was born in 1916 and began his career in high school as a campus correspondent for the Houston Post. He covered World War II as a United Press correspondent.

    In 1942, he landed with the Allied troops in North Africa, covering the battle of the North Atlantic . He was also with Allied troops making their beachhead assaults at Normandy in 1944.

    After the war he covered the Nuremberg trials, which held the top Nazi leaders to account for crimes against peace, war crimes and crimes against humanity. I believe that he learned very important lessons about peace from both the war and the trials that followed it.

    From 1946 to 1948 he was the chief correspondent for United Press in Moscow.

    In 1950 he joined CBS News, and was their anchor for political convention and election coverage from 1952 to 1980.

    In 1962 he began his duties with CBS Evening News, where he anchored the nightly news program until 1981. During that period he covered key historical events of the time – the wars, the assassinations, the elections and the ascent of man into space.

    Since his retirement from CBS News he has made many award-winning documentaries, including the Emmy-winning Children of Apartheid.

    He has received numerous prestigious awards for his contributions to broadcast journalism. He has been inducted into the Academy of Television Arts and Sciences Hall of Fame. And in 1981, he was awarded the Medal of Freedom, the nation’s highest civilian award.

    In 1999, upon receiving the Norman Cousins Global Governance Award of the World Federalist Association, Mr. Cronkite stated, “Those of us living today can influence the future of civilization. We can influence whether our planet will drift into chaos and violence, or whether through a monumental educational and political effort we will achieve a world of peace under a system of law where individual violators of that law are brought to justice.”

    On the subject of war and peace, he stated: “While we spend much of our time and a great deal of our treasure in preparing for war, we see no comparable effort to establish a lasting peace. Meanwhile.those advocates who work for world peace by urging a system of world government are called impractical dreamers. Those impractical dreamers are entitled to ask their critics what is so practical about war.”

    Walter Cronkite is a man who has seen war at close hand, reported on it over the course of seven decades, and who comes down unequivocally on the side of peace. For his honesty, integrity and courage as a journalist and for his commitment to building a more peaceful world, I am proud to present the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation’s 2004 Distinguished Peace Leadership Award to Walter Cronkite.

  • Meeting the Russell-Einstein Challenge to Humanity

    Meeting the Russell-Einstein Challenge to Humanity

    “Hope is not prognostication. It is an orientation of the spirit, an orientation of the heart.”

    Vaclav Havel

    On July 9, 1955, the Russell-Einstein Manifesto was issued in London. Its concern was with the new, powerful H-bombs, which the signers of the Manifesto believed placed the human race in jeopardy of annihilation. “Here, then, is the problem,” the Manifesto stated, “which we present to you, stark and dreadful and inescapable: Shall we put an end to the human race; or shall mankind renounce war? People will not face this alternative because it is so difficult to abolish war.”

    Nuclear Age Peace Foundation President David Krieger speaking to Soka Gakai in Hiroshima, Japan.

    Bertrand Russell and Albert Einstein were two of the leading intellectual figures of the 20th century. Russell was a philosopher, mathematician and Nobel Laureate in Literature. Einstein was a theoretical physicist, considered the greatest scientist of his time, and a Nobel Laureate in Physics. Both men were tireless advocates for peace throughout their lives.

    Russell was primarily responsible for drafting the Manifesto, but it contained ideas that Einstein often discussed. Einstein signed the document just days before his death. It was his last major act for peace.

    In addition to Russell and Einstein, the Manifesto was signed by nine other scientists: Max Born, Perry W. Bridgman, Leopold Infeld, Frederic Joliot-Curie, Herman J. Muller, Linus Pauling, Cecil F. Powell, Joseph Rotblat and Hideki Yukawa. All of these men either already had received or would receive the Nobel Prize. Linus Pauling, the great American chemist, would receive two Nobel Prizes, one for Chemistry and one for Peace.

    Sir Joseph Rotblat is the only signer of the Manifesto still living, and he is now 96 years old. He is an extraordinary man, who has been a tireless advocate of the Manifesto throughout his long life. He was the only scientist in the Manhattan Project to leave his position when he realized that the Germans would not succeed in developing an atomic weapon. He was the founder of the Pugwash Conferences on Science and World Affairs, and served as president of that organization until in recent years his advanced age caused him to step back. In 1995, Professor Rotblat and the Pugwash Conferences jointly received the Nobel Peace Prize. When Professor Rotblat turned 90, he announced that he had two remaining goals in life: first, the short-term goal of abolishing nuclear weapons; and, second, the long-term goal of abolishing war.

    The Russell-Einstein Manifesto makes the following points:

    1. Scientists have special responsibilities to awaken the public to the technological threats, particularly nuclear threats, confronting humanity.
    2. Those scientists with the greatest knowledge of the situation appear to be the most concerned.
    3. Nuclear weapons endanger our largest cities and threaten the future of humanity.
    4. In the circumstance of prevailing nuclear threat, humankind must put aside its differences and confront this overriding problem.
    5. The prohibition of modern weapons is not a sufficient solution to the threat; war as an institution must be abolished.
    6. Nonetheless, as a first step the nuclear weapons states should renounce these weapons.
    7. The choice before humanity is to find peaceful means of settling conflicts or to face “universal death.”

    In the end, the signers of the Manifesto believed, that humanity had a choice: “There lies before us, if we choose, continual progress in happiness, knowledge, and wisdom. Shall we, instead, choose death, because we cannot forget our quarrels? We appeal as human beings to human beings: Remember your humanity, and forget the rest. If you can do so, the way lies open to a new Paradise; if you cannot, there lies before you the risk of universal death.”

    Nuclear Age Peace Foundation President David Krieger speaking to Soka Gakai in Hiroshima, Japan.

    It has now been nearly 50 years since this Manifesto was made public. On the 40th anniversary of issuing the Manifesto in 1995, Joseph Rotblat concluded his Nobel Peace Prize acceptance speech by echoing the call: “Remember your humanity, and forget the rest.”

    In 2005, when the Russell-Einstein Manifesto has its 50th anniversary, we will be 60 years into the Nuclear Age and the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) will commemorate the 35th anniversary of its entry into force. In April 2005, the 189 parties to the NPT will meet at the United Nations in New York for their 7th Review Conference. The meeting promises to be contentious and disappointing.

    In 1995, the parties to the NPT agreed to extend the NPT indefinitely. At the time, the nuclear weapons states had reaffirmed their obligation in Article VI of the Treaty to pursue good faith efforts to achieve nuclear disarmament. Five years later, at the year 2000 NPT Review Conference, the parties to the Treaty agreed to 13 Practical Steps for Nuclear Disarmament. These included early entry into force of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, a verifiable treaty banning the production of fissile materials, application of the principle of irreversibility to nuclear disarmament, and an “unequivocal undertaking by the nuclear-weapon States to accomplish the total elimination of their nuclear arsenals..”

    The nuclear weapons states have made virtually no progress on the 13 Practical Steps and little seems likely. The United States has been the worst offender. It has failed to ratify the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, opposed creating a Fissile Material Cut-Off Treaty that is verifiable, treated nuclear disarmament as completely reversible and, in general, shown no good faith toward its obligations under the Treaty.

    Rather than fulfilling its own obligations, the US has pointed the finger at some potential nuclear proliferators. It initiated an illegal war against Iraq, alleging it possessed or was developing weapons of mass destruction programs, including nuclear programs, which turned out not to exist. It has stated that Iran will not be allowed to obtain nuclear weapons, implicitly threatening to attack Iran as well. After North Korea withdrew from the NPT, the US entered into six party talks with North Korea , but has been only half-hearted in its attempts to meet their concerns by offering security guarantees and development assistance.

    At the same time, the US has never expressed concern that Israel ‘s nuclear weapons pose a threat to Middle Eastern or global stability. When India and Pakistan tested nuclear devices in 1998 the US initially expressed concern. But after the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, the US tightened its relations with both of these countries and lifted its sanctions on military materials. Even after the discovery that Pakistani nuclear scientist A.Q. Khan was conducting a global nuclear arms bazaar, the US has maintained its close ties to Pakistan , despite the fact that Pakistani President Musharaf moved quickly to grant Khan a pardon. The US has yet to question Khan with regard to the extent of his nuclear proliferation.

    Mohamed ElBaradei, the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, recently reiterated that forty countries have the potential to become nuclear weapons states. Increased nuclear proliferation could be the ultimate result of the failure of the nuclear weapons states to fulfill their obligations for nuclear disarmament. One of these proliferating countries could be Japan , which remains a virtual nuclear weapons power with the technology and nuclear materials to become a nuclear weapons state in a matter of days.

    As we approach this important anniversary year of 2005, there is a failure of governmental leadership toward nuclear disarmament and little cause for hope. The United States , under the Bush administration, has turned the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 into an ongoing war, first in Afghanistan and then Iraq . Neither of these wars is going well. The Bush administration speaks of creating democracy in these two countries, but in fact both countries are now presided over by US-selected former CIA assets.

    If Mr. Bush should be elected to a second term, the American people will have ratified his policies of preventive war, deployment of missile defenses, creation of new nuclear weapons, the undermining of international law and the ravaging of the global environment for the benefit of US global hegemony and corporate profit. This would be a tragedy for the United States and for the rest of the world. This decision will be made on November 2, 2004 in the most important election in our lifetimes. Until this decision is made, we cannot predict the prospects for success at the 2005 Non-Proliferation Treaty Review Conference. We can project, though, that if Bush is elected, the prospects for the success of the Treaty conference and the future of the NPT will be exceedingly dim.

    The vision of the Russell-Einstein Manifesto, and of the two great men who put their names on it, stands in stark contrast to the vision of the leaders of today’s nuclear weapons states and, particularly, the present leadership in the United States . The Russell-Einstein Manifesto calls upon us to remember our humanity, ban nuclear weapons and cease war. Mr. Bush, in contrast, seems incapable of embracing a broader humanity, has shown no leadership toward banning nuclear weapons and has demonstrated his willingness to engage in preventive war on false pretenses.

    The Russell-Einstein Manifesto calls upon humanity to choose dramatically different futures. Since humanity is made up of all of us, we all must choose. And the choice of each of us matters. This great city of Hiroshima , a city that has experienced so much devastation and rebirth, led by its hibakusha , has chosen the path of a nuclear weapons-free future. I am always inspired by the spirit of Hiroshima and its courageous hibakusha , and I stand in solidarity with you on this path.

    One truly hopeful action at this time is the Mayors for Peace Emergency Campaign to Ban Nuclear Weapons. This campaign, led by the Mayors of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, calls for the initiation of negotiations in 2005 and the completion of negotiations in 2010 for the elimination of all nuclear weapons in the world by the year 2020. This is a great and necessary challenge, one which deserves our collective support. Just a few days ago, on behalf of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation, I presented our 2004 World Citizenship Award to the Mayors for Peace for their critical effort on behalf of humanity.

    Our cause is right and it is noble. It seeks, in the spirit of the Russell-Einstein Manifesto, to preserve humanity’s future. It calls upon us to raise our voices, to stand our ground, and to never give up. The year 2005 is a critical year, but it is not the only year. Our efforts must be sustained over a long period of time, perhaps longer than our lifetimes. This means we must inspire new generations to act for humanity.

    There will be times when we may be tired and discouraged, but we are not allowed to cease our efforts to rid the world of nuclear weapons. No matter what obstacles we face in the form of political intransigence or public apathy, we are not allowed to give up hope. This is the price of being fully human in the Nuclear Age. The future demands of us that we keep our hearts strong, our voices firm, and our hope alive.

    David Krieger is a founder and the president of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation (www.wagingpeace.org). He is a leader in the global movement to abolish nuclear weapons.

  • 21st Annual Evening for Peace: Broadcasting Peace: A Conversation with Walter Cronkite

    The following is a transcript of the live interview conducted by Sam Donaldson with Walter Cronkite, the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation’s 2004 Distinguished Peace Leader.

    Sam Donaldson with Walter Cronkite at the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation’s 21st Evening for Peace

    Donaldson: I must tell you that for many of us, without meaning any disrespect to the people now doing the CBS Evening News, it will always be the Cronkite Show. Here was the leader with a bunch of correspondents that couldn’t be touched, I know because we tried to compete against him, and Robert Pierpoint who was here earlier tonight. He was one of the great horsemen that Walter depended upon on that show. Let’s get down to business. I hear people say that this is the most important election of our lifetime. Is it? What do you make of its importance?

    Cronkite: I think it’s more important than our lifetime. I would think that this election is perhaps the most important in the last century, going back to perhaps the Civil War.

    Donaldson: You have to explain that. Why?

    Cronkite: I expect to. Why is because we have taken a 180 degree turn in our policy and foreign policy. We have adopted this incredible decision as announced by the president in his announcement of our policy future, which is a compulsory thing they have to do every couple of years. And he announced the system of preemption. With this preemption and the unilateral nature of it, as practiced by the administration very shortly thereafter, we have established a foreign policy that is unsustainable in a world that we hope will be governed by peace rather than war. As a consequence, we are on a very, very dangerous course for not only the United States but for civilization. The suggestion that one should take preemptive action if that nation believes that it is threatened by a neighbor, for heaven’s sakes, that may sound possible to sustain if you are a dominant nation such as the United States . But what do you do if you translate that same program to one of the African neighbor nations, to one of the Middle Eastern neighbor nations? As soon as you sense that you are endangered by your neighbor, you are therefore entitled, because the United States has established this wonderful concept, you are therefore entitled to go to war. What kind of a future is that for the world? It is incredibly impossible to sustain that kind of a foreign policy around the world among all the nations of the world that are entitled because of our leadership, to say, well, the United States does it, why can’t we do it?

    Donaldson: Well, the president says it’s us against them, that we live in a dangerous world, we must defend ourselves and we’re gonna divide the world up between those who support our policy and those who don’t. Those who support us will be our allies, and those who don’t will pay the piper.

    Cronkite: I’d say that’s one hell of a way to behave to those who believe with us, to tell them that either you’re with us or against us – either you accept what we say we will do or you cannot be part of the game. That hardly seems to me to be a foreign policy that is very practical of long endurance. It may suffice for a moment, but it’s not going to live very long in the history of our universe.

    Donaldson: Walter, do you think we are safer or less safe because our strike against Iraq ?

    Cronkite: Far less safe.

    Donaldson: Why?

    Cronkite: Because as we read every day in the press and occasionally hear on television-

    Donaldson: We’ll get to that.

    Cronkite: I thought you would, so I thought I’d preempt you. The problem quite clearly is that we have excited the Arab world, the Muslim world, to take up arms against us, far beyond what was being done by Al-Qaeda and others, of the terrorist groups. We have created a new body of importance in the terrorist groups who are coalescing around the Iraqi situation.

    Donaldson: The president said in that famous State of the Union message in which he described the axis of evil that the United States would not stand idly by and permit nations to acquire weapons of mass destruction that threaten us, which suggests that maybe if the president maintains political power that we will then have to move against Iran. Maybe North Korea . What do you think?

    Walter Cronkite at the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation’s 21st Evening for Peace

    Cronkite: That is precisely the course that he has set. Actually, the truth of the matter is we do not have the military strength to take on Iran and North Korea simultaneously or even separately at this point. We have committed nearly all of the forces we have available to this enterprise in Iraq . For heaven’s sakes. This argument about a draft. That this administration would dare to assert that there is no draft in their thinking. That’s got to be an absolutely straight out lie, one of many that they have made. We cannot continue the Iraq war as it is quite clearly going to continue for quite a while and expect to be prepared to move on Iran , to move on North Korea , to even have this vaunted security and safety at home without a draft. We don’t have that kind of power in our military today. And we are being lied to when we are being told there is no thought of a draft in the Pentagon.

    Donaldson: Well, it won’t be the first time we’ve been lied to by various presidents, now, Walter. It’s nothing new.

    Cronkite: Well, yes, but do we really have time to go into that?

    Donaldson: No. I’m not asking for a litany of lies. All right. How could the administration have so badly miscalculated after we got to Baghdad in less than three and a half weeks, militarily, from the standpoint of trying to then move forward to do something in Iraq that would bring it out all right? How come they didn’t know anything about the Middle East ?

    Cronkite: I wish the hell I knew the answer to that. That’s one of the questions we have every right to ask and you’re just the guy to ask it.

    Donaldson: Well, it’s easy to ask questions. But a lot of people say, fine, if they thought they wanted to do this, they did not prepare. I’m borrowing a Kerry line, I suppose. Or maybe he stole it from you. They did not prepare for the peace. They had no plan after that. They made miscalculations, did they not? And so at the point we’re at now, answer the fundamental question: We’re hip deep in the big muddy once again, as Lyndon Johnson’s time showed: how do we get out?

    Cronkite: The program that I have proposed through the Democrats-I say that with, I hope everybody understands, my tongue in my cheek. I’m working both sides. My tongue is in both cheeks. I wrote a column about it and it didn’t get printed anywhere, but it was a great column. I proposed what I would like to hear the Democratic candidate say. My proposal was that he would say that one of the first steps he would take upon moving into the Oval Office, besides changing the furniture around a bit, would be to organize a panel of retired generals who have come out during the various discussions of the Iraq War against what has been going on in Iraq, the entire lack of planning, inadequate number of troops, all of the things that these retired generals have come on television to report on. He would organize this panel and would tell them he wanted their plan for us to get out of Iraq with honor, to get our troops home and to have them do this within the next six months. I can imagine, I would say if I were the candidate, what would happen in America as those boys and girls came home. Every Broadway, every Main Street would be festooned with American flags. We would welcome those boys and girls back in every town and community of America . They would be honored as they’ve never been honored before. But more than that, we’d be sure that everyone of those people would be entitled to an education that we would pay for to help pay them back for their service. Furthermore, we would supply a fund so that every professional person serving in the reserve, in the National Guard, who was called up and lost his practice in the law or dentistry or whatever would get financial help to restore that practice he had when he went away. Every businessman, every single small businessman who lost his business because he was called up and kept there longer than he should have been kept anyway, that individual would get financial help. I would put these people back on their feet because they’re entitled to it.

    But we would go further than that, of course. We would then begin to put together the codicil for peace that this nation would follow in the future. And that codicil for peace would be a vastly different thing than our present foreign policy. The very first thing we would do would be to reverse 180 degrees our attitude towards the United Nations. We would put our full force behind the United Nations. We would do everything we can to bring the United Nations into the position of power that it should have. We are going to have to someday in the attempt to make an international organization of this kind work. Our only real hope of establishing a lasting peace is that such an organization will work. That would mean the United Nations would have legislative power, judicial power and military power to say this is the road to peace and we will hold peace. Now that is going to require-I see your tongue moving toward your check.

    Donaldson: Towards my mouth, my lips.

    Cronkite: But let me say what that requires. I know what it requires and you know what it requires, and you’re about to hang me with it. What this requires is an understanding of the American people that we can only assure world peace through an international organization if we are willing to surrender some of our sovereignty.

    Donaldson: You’re right, Walter, you guessed my question. Both candidates, not just President Bush, but Senator Kerry, say in almost the same words, “I will never give another nation veto power over the security of the United States.” And the crowds cheer. So how are you going to convince the American people that we should in fact obey the rule of international law?

    Cronkite: As with almost everything else to be solved with our national being and for world peace, it’s going to require a lot of education. We begin with that. We’ve got to improve our educational system to the degree that we have a literate society to which you can appeal with a reasonable argument rather than the passion of the moment or the passion of the past that has to be preserved. That won’t work. We have to have a revolutionary change. You know, Tom Jefferson, old Tom said at one time that the nation that expects to be ignorant and free, expects what never can and never will be. We are on the precipice of being so ignorant that we cannot function well as a democracy.

    Donaldson: And that is a terrific segue to our business. We have distinguished members of the educational community here with great universities and all that. But our business, the news business, tap into it. Are we helping in this process that you describe today?

    Cronkite: No. We’re not participating in it at all.

    Donaldson: What happened to us?

    Cronkite: Well, what happened was cable. Not actually what the cable people are doing, but the fact that there is such a profusion today of various cable channels and cable stations that they have drastically reduced the audience for the traditional networks, that is, the old timers NBC, ABC, CBS. They have so reduced their income that they do not dare to do anything except the cheapest kind of entertainment programming. And they will not give an adequate amount of time or consideration in any other way to informing the American people of the problems of our time. They’re not helping to educate the people in any way. Now, that is in parallel, if you will, with the failure of our educational system. We have now wasted so much money with cutting the tax rates of the rich in this country that we do not have enough money left to be sure that no child is left behind. We’ve got so many children left behind today, it’s unbelievable. We’re not able to build the schoolhouses that are needed, but most of all we’re not able to pay our teachers what they deserve. These are the people we have employed to raise this educational level of the American people to the degree that we do not fall to Thomas Jefferson’s forecast; that we are an intelligent people that can understand the issues of the day and vote accordingly. We are in a position today that we cannot do that job. We literally cannot pay teachers what they’re worth. Now, where do we go from here? I hope you’re not going to ask me the next question, where do we go from here?

    Donaldson: Where do we go from here, Walter? Where do we go from here, Walter? Answer the question!

    Cronkite: Well, God knows. And unfortunately, since only God knows, that means only Bush knows.

    Donaldson: Remember this. Someone once said, God takes care of fools, drunks and the United States of America .

    Cronkite: And perhaps the Democratic party.

    Donaldson: Well, let’s cover that point. You wrote earlier this year in a column about the political campaign, and you said religion ought not to be an issue in the political campaign.

    Cronkite: Absolutely.

    Donaldson: But it is.

    Cronkite: Of course it is. It’s being exploited very successfully, I’m afraid, by the Republican party, and the group of evangelicals who have helped finance this effort to make religion an issue in the campaign, in the election.

    Donaldson: You don’t think God favors one party over the other, that God gets into the tax code? Maybe he has an exemption there, who know?

    Cronkite: I used to think that God took part in contests at one time or another, until the Boston team won a couple of nights ago.

    Sam Donaldson at the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation’s 21st Evening for Peace

    Donaldson: David Krieger said that our job is to tell the truth, bring the truth to people. But when we attempt to do that by fact checking ads, by fact checking what candidates say, we’re accused of being partisan, we’re accused of getting into the contest. What do you think our job is? How should we handle a political contest like what’s going on today?

    Cronkite: I think you’ll agree with me almost immediately. I dodge the question in a sense. We are never going to be able to do it unless the networks, and I’m talking about our traditional networks again, give us enough time to devote to information transmission to the people. Those half-hour evening news programs, as you know only too well, are vastly inadequate. After the commercials, the lead-ins, the lead-outs and all that, we’ve got something like 16 or 17 minutes at the most. We’ve got one of the most complicated nations in the world with our vast numbers of special interests across our broad nation. We are presumably a great leader of a world that is incredibly complex today, more than probably any time in recent history at any rate. And to think that we can tell just the essentials that happen in that world, that domestic world, that international world, in 16 minutes is ridiculous. We can’t do it. Now then, you and I for all of our careers with our networks have hoped for prime time. We are in this mixed time, evening time from 6:00 to 6:30. We all wished for years for prime time in which to do news or documentaries. We finally got it three or four years ago. So what do we do with these magazine shows? Sex, crime, the oddball events of the world. Nothing serious in those programs. What would happen if our networks would devote those magazine prime time magazine hours that they do to instant documentaries? Suppose that you have got the headlines at 6:30 and you came up with 60 Minutes Wednesday night for an hour and at that time, by golly, you saw a documentary and a panel of experts and so forth that would explore the problem that we revealed at 6:30. We would advise this nation, we would educate this nation in a manner in which it has never been educated before. We would use television the way people dreamed that television would be used when we first had the tubes on the market.

    Donaldson: I’m with you, Walter, but you know what would happen is the bottom line network bosses, the people who own us now, would say, “We can’t put that on because we won’t get a mass audience. Someone over here has gotten hold of the Paris Hilton tape and put it on and that’s where all the eyeballs are.”

    Cronkite: That’s exactly what they’d say.

    Donaldson: That’s exactly what they are saying.

    Cronkite: Not only would they say it, they’d do it.

    Donaldson: But you’re talking about the evening news. I remember where in the fall of 1972, you did two long Watergate stories two nights in a row, 7, 8, 9 minutes apiece. That doesn’t happen anymore. Why not?

    Cronkite: Well, that gets into a more difficult problem. I don’t know the why not because it could be done. We did those two programs, one on Friday night and one on Monday night and, actually, they were even longer than 6 or 7 minutes each. They were 17 minutes, one of them, the first one, Friday night. This was my concept. This was just before the election of that year and Watergate had been in all the headlines for three or four months and then it had suddenly died out because that’s the way stories work for the press. We had told all of it. The Washington Post team had not come up with any new revelations. Deep Throat, if there was one (I won’t start that argument), hadn’t come up with anything. As a consequence, as things work in the press, the story moved from the front page to page 3 to page 7 to page 9 to the comic page with a two liner, and I was determined that we were going to remind the American people of the Watergate story before we went to the polls a couple of months later. So we put together this review of Watergate and we went deep into the documentary type stuff. We put together and made a pretty good piece out of it. The problem was, of course, that we put it out on a Friday and practically before we were off the air, the White House – the group who had done all of this, Nixon’s group – was on the phone to Bill Paley, the chairman and owner of CBS, and was demanding that we abandon the Monday piece and, a matter of fact, they wanted a special done to correct the mistakes we had made in the piece we had done. Paley, of course, panicked, I would say, for the moment and called Dick Salant, the head of CBS News who was a brilliant man.

    Donaldson: Lawyer, good lawyer.

    Cronkite: Oh, terrific, terrific. He had to listen to Paley, of course, and Paley was saying you have to do something about this, the White House is on us, it’s very difficult, you can’t do that Monday piece. Salant was saying, well, I’ll work on it, I’ll work on it. Meanwhile Frank Stanton was calling and others were calling. The pressure was on. Salant, being as brilliant as he was, when he came to us, he came to us from the counsel’s office at CBS. Eric Severeid and all of us practically were going to quit because we thought that the management was sending in this lawyer who was going to suppress us and only be the spokesman for management. He turned out to be the greatest journalist I’d ever known in his sense of honesty, integrity and telling the full story regardless of where the chips fell. He was a tremendous man.

    Donaldson: So even though you had to cut it down, you did run the second piece?

    Cronkite: What happened was that Salant was smart enough to compromise and he called Paley and he said we’ve taken care of it, Mr. Paley. We’re gonna cut the length of the piece on Monday. Well, we did. We cut a few minutes out of a long piece, but Paley was satisfied with that and was able to answer the White House by saying, “We’re cutting it down on Monday.” That didn’t please the White House, of course. They kept insisting that we had to cancel it. But Paley stood firm on that one.

    Donaldson: I just remember that. Walter, you could spend all evening doing it, but very quickly, handicap the next nine days and if you care to make a predication about who’s going to win, make it.

    Cronkite: I really am not prepared to. I don’t know. I think it’s that close. I can’t remember an election in which I didn’t think I could call it in advance until this year.

    Donaldson: Why is it this close?

    Cronkite: I think it’s this close because there is a huge body of people who would wear the “Anybody but Bush” pin who, at the same time, are not intrigued by Kerry. I don’t think he has made the impression that he needs to make to assure a victory. He’s managed in these three debates to bring himself back to even, almost even, but not overwhelmingly in the lead. I have been disappointed myself in his candidacy. You know, you and I made a lot of comments. I remember some of yours and if I don’t remember them, I’m making them up anyway.

    Donaldson: I’ve made a lot of dumb predictions, if that’s what you mean.

    Cronkite: Not predictions, but we made fun of the fact that we ourselves were talking about charisma being a feature of presidential elections since television came in, that television had changed the whole balance of election campaigning because it injected this feature of charisma.

    Donaldson: Well, it has, hasn’t it?

    Cronkite: It has. And that’s what I was going to say, that we have to invoke that name, that charisma identification in the case of the Democratic candidate. He does not have charisma. That is a difficult thing to overcome and meanwhile, without the charisma that he needs, he has, I think, not done a very good job of campaigning. It took him too long to get away from the litany of mistakes that this administration has made and get down to the program that he himself would substitute. I think that’s what people want to hear. What would he do? And we really still haven’t gotten a very clear picture of the program with which he would come in to the White House.

    Donaldson: But we know the President’s program. Is it a case of better the devil we know than the devil we don’t know, for some people? We know what George W. Bush will do. More of the same.

    Cronkite: I know and I find it hard to believe that there’s anybody that would vote for that.

    Donaldson: Half the country . And with that, would you do something for us that I think everyone in the room would love to have you do one more time. Will you sign off! With your famous sign off!

    Cronkite: And that’s the way it is, Saturday, October 23, 2004. Goodnight.

  • Mayor Tadatoshi Akiba’s 2004 World Citizenship Award Acceptance Speech

    Memorial Hall, Hiroshima Peace Memorial Museum, October 8, 2004

    Dr. David Krieger, honorable guests, colleagues and friends. It is my greatest honor to represent 619 member cities of the organization Mayors for Peace in accepting this year’s World Citizenship Award from such a prestigious organization as the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation.

    It is indeed a pleasure to be recognized here in Hiroshima by the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation among such prestigious leaders in the movement for the abolition of nuclear weapons. This organization, the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation, has spearheaded our movement by showing us the direction to follow. It has also given us concrete examples by taking specific measures that have been effective in accomplishing our goal.

    The recent Nuclear Age Peace Foundation campaign called “Turn the Tide” is an excellent example of a job well done, one that will have a great effect on the world.

    I also would like to add that we are fortunate to find a leader in the person of Dr. David Krieger as well as in the persons all of us here, leaders in a joint effort for the abolition of nuclear weapons.

    I would like to take this opportunity to summarize what our organization, Mayors for Peace, has been trying to accomplish and what we are aiming to accomplish. To start my review, I would like to mention one trend that is very important, at least in my mind.

    The problem of nuclear weapons was created by science and technology. Partly because of this, our movement to abolish nuclear weapons is firmly based on science, scientists, scientific thinking and all the relevant facts.

    Here I am using the words “science,” “scientists,” and so forth broadly. Let me mention a few examples that might be noteworthy. In the 1980s, a great movement was created, the nuclear freeze movement, largely through the efforts of physicians. Medical science, one of the scientific realms, declares that there is nothing these powerful scientists can do once nuclear war erupts.

    Environmental scientists also show us clearly that from the environmental and ecological points of view that nuclear war is not preventable. The only way to get rid of this danger is to abolish all nuclear weapons.

    Other scientists and experts can tell you from their areas of expertise that the only way is to get rid of all nuclear weapons.

    Here I would like to add another component to this list of experts’ opinions about nuclear weapons. That is, the perspective of mayors or city managers.

    Actually there is an American president who describes what I am going to say very well. Let me quote him first. The president is Abraham Lincoln. He said, “You may fool all of the people some of the time, you can even fool some of the people all of the time. But you can not fool all of the people all of the time”.

    In a sense, this is an abstract statement but it is most true on the level of running a city, dealing with daily lives of citizens. For example, in lofty or high places, one could argue whether weapons of mass destruction exist or not and can get away with not saying the truth.

    But on the level of issues that mayors deal with, when garbage piles up on the streets there is no denying it. You cannot just lie. We have to deal with daily lives of citizens at that level. That is why mayors really see the facts clearly. We see the truths that surround us very clearly and we base our judgment on those facts and truth.

    Last October, in Manchester England , Mayors for Peace held an executive committee meeting. The discussion was based on facts that we have to deal with on a daily bases. We have come to the conclusion that nuclear weapons will have to be eliminated as soon as possible. We have set the deadline for the year 2020.

    Although some people said that wouldn’t be doable, we set the year 2020 partly because of the hibakusha. Hibakusha is the Japanese word for survivors of atomic bombs. As a matter of fact, after we announced the deadline we received warm words from our hibakusha friends. Their only complaint or criticism was that 2020 was not soon enough because they may not alive to see the day.

    To honor these hibakusha , we would like to stick to that goal and work harder in order to realize our goal no later than the year 2020. To start a summary of our activities let me start with what the hibakusha themselves have done. I believe it is very important to mention this. The World Citizenship Award, I am sure, has been given to Mayors for Peace because we do represent the voices of hibakusha.

    In the Peace Declaration of 1999, I summarized and pointed out three important contributions that the hibakusha had made by that time. The first one is the fact that they chose to live under circumstances in which they could not have been blamed had they chosen death. They not only chose to live, but to do so as decent human beings. This is quite an accomplishment that we tend to take for granted.

    The second accomplishment is that they effectively prevented a third use of nuclear weapons. When we tell their stories of August 6 and August 9, we feel like we live them. Certainly, anybody who went through that experience wishes to avoid telling it. Despite that fact they kept telling the world what would happen if another nuclear weapon should be used.

    The third important accomplishment is that they created and live a new world view. This is what Dr. Albert Einstein believed. Although he thought it did not exist, it does in the minds of hibakusha and it has spread all over the world by now. I would like to express that value as “reconciliation” instead of “retaliation”. The hibakusha themselves say simply that no one else should go through the experience they had. This spirit has been captured in the Memorial Cenotaph in the Peace Park , as well as in the Japanese Constitution.

    These are the footsteps on which the Mayors for Peace base our decisions and future activities.

    The first activity that the Mayors for Peace launched actually occurred in April this year in New York .

    Mayors and deputy mayors gathered in New York City to attend the Preparatory Committee meeting of the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) conference, speak to the national delegates from various countries, make speeches, speak to city council members in New York City, speak to journalists, non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and so forth. It was a series of very important activities, some of which were extremely effective.

    I would like to quote a deputy mayor who summarized the activities in April. Jenny Jones is the deputy mayor of London . She said, “At the beginning of the experience in New York I was not sure what would happen, but the entire experience was invigorating. I am recharged with energy and feel I can work even harder for the abolition of nuclear weapons once I go back to London “. She was pleased, energized and energetic. London will be represented at the NPT Review Conference next year in May. I’m hoping Mayor Ken Livingston himself will join us.

    The consensus among participating mayors and deputy mayors was that although not all of the comments from national delegates were encouraging, after we went through the experience, we believe that it is possible to abolish nuclear weapons by the year of 2020.

    The second step of our activity is basically the one-year period between August 6 of this year till August 9 of next year, although we will put more focus on the period between August 6 this year until the NPT Review Conference in May next year.

    During this period we would like to sponsor concerts, symposia, and other activities to raise public awareness and to gather more momentum worldwide. There are many different activities happening all around the world on a daily basis, and more mayors are joining the Mayors for Peace organization. Other organizations and NGOs are holding their own activities to help us gather forces together in May next year in New York .

    The important component of our campaign is for mayors and NGOs to approach their respective governments to get them to help us induce the NPT Review Conference to adopt formal documents outlining our proposal for the abolition of nuclear weapons.

    Our aim is to have a universal nuclear weapons convention signed by the year 2010 and ultimately abolish all nuclear weapons by the year 2020. We also have a contingency plan in case our present course does not materialize. But I am not going to tell you about that because we would like to concentrate on realizing our goal rather than fearing that we may not be able to accomplish it.

    The third step is the NPT Review conference itself, which will be held in May next year. By the way, next year is 60th anniversary of the atomic bombings. We would like to have at least 100 mayors from Mayors for Peace cities and also at least 1000 NGO representatives representing various voices grassroots movements from around the world in New York during the NPT Review conference.

    I also would like to tell you that our efforts have been doubled, tripled or quadrupled – actually enhanced one hundred-fold by people of various organizations and NGOs around the world who have worked so hard. Let me just point out a few things that did not happen in the previous movement for abolishing nuclear weapons.

    Our efforts – grassroots movements and civil society movements – quite often have been ignored by formal governmental structures. In February this year, the European Congress actually adopted a resolution supporting the Mayors for Peace emergency campaign. In June in Boston , the US conference of Mayors consisting of 1183 American cities adopted by acclamation a resolution whose content was even stronger than that of European Congress. Many governments, including those who sent their ambassadors to Hiroshima in recent years, have endorsed our emergency campaign.

     

    In the area of NGOs, International Physicians for Prevention of Nuclear War (IPPNW), which won the Nobel Prize in 1985, has also recently adopted a resolution endorsing our emergency campaign in Beijing.

    And today we have honor of receiving the 2004 World Citizenship Award from the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation, which is another way of endorsing our campaign in an effort to expand this effort to abolish all nuclear weapons by the year 2020.

    In 1945, just after the atomic bombing, some people claimed that no life would grow in Hiroshima for 75 years. Of course you see the trees and flowers now, so this statement was not true. But in a different sense, as long as we have nuclear weapons on this earth, one could claim that no real life is actually thriving on the earth. We do not have life actualizing its fullest potential as long as there are nuclear weapons. Therefore, let us make sure that the year 2020, 75 years after the atomic bombings, will be the year real life is born again by abolishing nuclear weapons.

    When Mr. Nelson Mandela was released from the prison after 28 years, he was asked by a journalist, “What are you going to do next?” I suppose the journalist wanted to hear some important political action that Nelson Mandela was planning at the time. But Nelson Mandela answered “I would like to listen to classical music while watching a beautiful sunset on a beach.”

    So in that spirit I would like to promise you that Mayors for Peace, and I personally, will do our best to accomplish our goal by the year 2020. And I know that all of you will join us, so that in the year 2020 we will be able to listen to Beethoven’s 9th Symphony and rejoice that finally peace has come while watching the sun set beautifully into the Seto Inland Sea over Hiroshima. Let’s work together.

    Thank your very much.

  • 2004 World Citizenship Award Presentation to Mayors for Peace

    2004 World Citizenship Award Presentation to Mayors for Peace

    World citizenship has become essential to our survival as a species. Our powerful technologies have made our problems global, and the solutions to these problems must also be global. If the Earth is destroyed, no country, no matter how powerful, will be spared the devastation. We all have a vested interest in preserving our planet. Our time calls out for world citizenship.

    On our planet today are many greedy plunderers, individuals and corporations that would use up the Earth’s resources for their own short-term profits, polluting the air, water and land without regard for the good of the planet and its inhabitants. These plunderers, who often seek out the weakest national link to gain greater advantage in enhancing their profits, are destroying our wondrous life-supporting planet.

    Some governments have stockpiled thousands of nuclear weapons, the worst of all weapons of mass destruction, weapons that are capable of reducing our great cities to rubble. Despite obligations under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, these governments have clung tenaciously to their large nuclear arsenals, threatening the survival of the human species and most life on Earth.

    Finding global solutions to global problems demands a worldwide constituency for change, a constituency of world citizens, who put the problems of the planet ahead of their concerns for their particular geographic portion of the planet. The number of world citizens on the planet is relatively small, but growing. The growth curve is in a race against time to save the planet from plunder and destruction and to achieve sustainability for future generations.

    In 1998, the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation began presenting an annual award for World Citizenship. Previous honorees have been media innovator Ted Turner; Queen Noor of Jordan; poet and philosopher Daisaku Ikeda; artist Frederick Franck; and entertainer and humanitarian Harry Belafonte. This year’s honoree is – for the first time, an organization – Mayors for Peace.

    Mayors for Peace was selected for their innovative approach to the abolition of nuclear weapons. They have initiated an Emergency Campaign to Ban Nuclear Weapons by the year 2020, which they call Vision 2020. Witnessing the strain on the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty by the failure of the nuclear weapons states to fulfill their treaty obligations for nuclear disarmament and recognizing the dangers that nuclear arsenals pose to all cities, the Mayors for Peace created their Emergency Campaign. The Campaign calls for initiating negotiations for nuclear weapons abolition in the year 2005, concluding these negotiations in the year 2010, and completing the process of eliminating these weapons by the year 2020. The Emergency Campaign brings the issue of nuclear disarmament to cities throughout the world through the commitment of mayors who have a responsibility to protect their constituents.

    In 2004, the Mayors for Peace Emergency Campaign brought 16 mayors and deputy mayors from 12 countries to the United Nations in New York for the Preparatory Committee meeting to the 2005 Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty Review Conference (NPT). The organization is currently making preparations to have more than 100 mayors and deputy mayors at the 2005 NPT Review Conference. Their presence made a strong impact in 2004 and will undoubtedly make an even greater impact in 2005.

    The superb leadership of Mayors for Peace has come from its president, Mayor Tadatoshi Akiba of Hiroshima , and its vice-president, Mayor Iccho Itoh of Nagasaki. It is altogether fitting and proper that the leadership of this organization and campaign should come from these cities that suffered the devastating consequences of nuclear weapons dropped on them. We hope that the survivors of the bombings in these cities, the hibakusha , who are ambassadors of the Nuclear Age, will take particular pride in this World Citizenship Award and the efforts of their mayors for a world free of nuclear weapons. We also hope that this Award will help in mobilizing additional mayors to join in the global effort to eliminate nuclear weapons.

    It is my honor and pleasure to present the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation’s 2004 World Citizenship Award to Mayor Tadatoshi Akiba representing the Mayors for Peace.

    David Krieger is a founder and the president of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation (www.wagingpeace.org)